The People of the State of New York v. Lon Coldiron

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,RESPONDENT,v.LON COLDIRON,DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered September 8, 2009.

People v Coldiron

Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on September 30, 2011

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of arson in the third degree and attempted grand larceny in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10 [1]) and attempted grand larceny in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 155.40 [1]), defendant contends that County Court failed to comply with CPL 310.30 in responding to a jury note requesting a readback of certain testimony. The record establishes that the court gave defense counsel ample opportunity to provide input prior to the readback, and we thus conclude that defense counsel's "silence at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection renders the [contention] unpreserved" for our review (People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516; see People v Smikle, 82 AD3d 1697). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, the court properly allowed the People to present testimony concerning a prior uncharged arson. That testimony "was probative of defendant's motive and intent and provided background information explaining" defendant's conduct prior to the fire (People v Collins, 29 AD3d 434, 434). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph of defendant's dog in evidence, inasmuch as the photograph was relevant to the prosecution's theory and thus was not admitted for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jury (see People v Hill, 82 AD3d 1715, 1717). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.